In the words of Penn Jillette:

Mauceri's take is BULL****! She apparently also forgot to mention to the nice Fixed News interviewer that she rewrote massive chunks of her dialogue in this storyline. 'Cause, you see, it wouldn't give her as much sympathy.

As for Jamey's take...what he said!

I have to say I don't like the way this story has been reported on DC with Mauceri guilty until proven innocent. She didn't say that the character would never accept her son as gay she said she had a problem with the way this story in particular was told. She's played Carlotta for 14 years and see's her personal growth as parallel to Carlotta's. Whatever actions she's taken in the past has created the person she is today. It's not surprising that her past mistakes might have made Carlotta turn to the church in a rigid way. OLTL is pretty good these days but the 2 time rapist with 2 women who he's burned in the recent past chasing him on the heels of rapemance prove that neither RC or FV are infallible.

I am STUNNED. I mean...really. I bet FOX news ate this with a spoon. SHE'S AN ACTRESS. She was hired to SAY WORDS. Now, if Carlotta suddenly became a baby porn queen, then I'd say maybe she has a case.
But this?
IN 2009????????

I hope she loses...and then all the gays in her life shun her (and you know there are some!)

Jamey, I heard you got married to Sam McCall? I was in shock when I read Nelson's column.

And with Mauceri I can only agree with what you say. They can play so much without complaining, but a gay storyline is that much different? When it's about adultery you don't feel like giving your opinion and doing interviews with FOX, but when it's a gay storyline you feel robbed in your beliefs?
And in the end of the day, an actress is about to play what they writer's give her. Isn't it hypocritical to be at a soap that writes a rapmance and involves you in adultery and lying, but as soon as it gets to same-sex-romance it's a really BIG deal!?

Leave it to you to insult her personally on the way out the door, how cowardly.

You all know nothing but accuse, curse and talk about her like you are her judge and jury. you all dont seem to have a clue. God bless your poor souls. You couldn't even handle the truth, if you even recognize it, that's why you deleted me from FaceBook, it got just too uncomfortable huh? Dont forgot My Space.

Dana

Uh, I think THE TRUTH are in her own words!!!! "IT goes AGAINST MY BELIEF system"...
Uh, that pretty much says it all.
She's A BIGOT.

Hate the two women fighting over a rapist s/l too, but I don't know what the real story is, but like Jamey said, "act whats on the script". But sometimes actors can voice how their characters would behave or do so Patricia have a right to talk to the director about the s/l. But I don't not think that religion should be voked in s/ls because with all the immoral things characters do, you are playing characters and if you not doing anything bad and being forced to do something that they don't want to do, I think that the show is in their rights to get rid of actor.

How Can she sue on what grounds. she wasnt under contract to ABC/OLTL. They have no legal obligation to her

How it's reported on DC? Go back and read my posts, then read the FOX news story. She admitted everything my sources told me. And Dana, how did I insult her? Name one thing I said that was insulting. The polyester remark was talking about the character of Carlotta, but I think you know that, but admitting that will make your venom less dramatic right? Why not go to all those learned, revered soap sites you adore so much? Oh, there's only five other people there for you to talk to. Not nearly as much fun huh?

  If we're  so maddening  here at DC and you feel for our souls (while defending admitted bigotry) or whatever, why are you here? Cursing alarms you, but homophobia is peachy keen right?

 No one forces you to log in. Why does it bother you that I deleted you from my personal facebook account. Hypocrite much? You were promoting a blog post that attacked me personally because of my views over Y&R, a fictional show, yet you call me out. The blogger you linked on your site, who was slamming me,  used a nickname. I use my real name. My FULL NAME, every day. Who is the coward? Ninety-nine percent of what I say is proven fact over and over again, so keep on hating, but by all means, keep on coming back. I need the money to pay my internet bill.

As Jamey always says "actors need to act".

Sorry to see Patricia go, and how surprising she was interviewed by FOX News. I never would have saw that coming. They could have had a two-for-one special with Chris Engen.

P.S. Loving KISH, and Chris with Layla. This is the best acting and most appealing David Fumero has ever been. He should thank Ron C. for this gay storyline, and be grateful he is paired with an actual actress this time. Tika is stunning.

Jamey and DC: when are we going to get a special podcast on the state of OLTL?

I will say again, I think this hinges on when her belief were formed (meaning the past storylines only come into play if her faith wasnt newer than the dates of those stories), what things were discussed behind the scenes and how consistent she has been in her beliefs. Until we know that its hard to put any of this into context. Discrimination based on sexuality is unacceptable, but so too is discrimination based on religious belief.

Is stupidity a sin?I'm glad she stuck to her beliefs,but I'm also glad that she's unemployed.Am I wrong for that?

That scene may have gone against her beliefs but I don't see how OLTL should have to rewrite a scene to accommodate them, especially when she is not on contract. I don't think their refusual to do so is religious discimination.And as someone who was raised Catholic I don't think a Catholic would necessarily have a problem with their child being gay. Sure homosexuality was taught to be a sin but not a major one but we were also taught to be tolerant and most people were not that bothered by it.

Appleridge, I think what she will claim is that she has a religious belief system that is so much a part of her life that she made a decision to only play characters that espouse the same belief system. She accepted the job believing that character of Carlotta would be a practicing Catholic, like herself, and would therefore have similiar beliefs. I am guessing she would claim something like "detrimental reliance" - that she gave up other offers, roles, money making opportunities in general, in order to continue in this role, only to have tptb fundementally change the core of the character and when she expressed her concerns within the context of her faith, she was fired.

OLTL will argue that they have the right to change the direction of a character at any time and her expressed refusal to play the scenes, as written, forced them to recast. Who knows, they might countersue for the expenses related to changing any publicity materials ie: the opening and expenses related to the recasting process.

It would then come down to the contract and whether historically they have accomodated her or others based on religious preference. But remember, she may think this will give her access to certain other jobs, speaking appearances and what not.

I would think, although I am not a lawyer, that it wouldnt be unlike someone taking a part thinking there wouldnt be nudity and then suddenly being told there is a topless scene. It wouldnt be as simple as "act whats on the page" but rather what discussions and contract provisions were made regarding nudity.

*ROTFLMAO!* Mad over facebook deletion? Bitter much? Too funny. As for Patricia, she' said a mouth full on Fox with the statement that quoted her in its exact form.

Okay Nudity and I hate this being used as an example cause its not fair

There is a Nudity clause which is seperate from an actors contract. Any job cannot force someone to do nudity. There has to be a legal binding document signed first

As far as an acting contract, she didnt have one and she has played Carlotta having afairs etc and she did them without walking. Those scenes right there should get any legal manuver she wants to do thrown out of court

PM also has a full time job and being on recuring is actually a way she can accept any other roles cause shes not legally obligated to One Life

Im sorry but PM shot herself in the foot here.

I agree with what you are saying to an extent... she knows this character better than anyone, while we must not for get she is paid to do a job. Her position has a job discription. I hear and comprehend what you are saying and I agree.

I could care less if her beliefs conflicted with her job.

Let's not forget, Carlotta hasn't been on for MONTHS - since Antonio left. I don't even think she was on when Talia was killed off. Also, they couldn't even pay her when Brie was told to go see Carlotta for a cookie @ the diner.

Obviously, OLTL doesn't have the budget for many recurring players anymore. Noelle/Moe were carted off back to Paris, Nigel and Renee didn't even make it to the double wedding.

Time's are tough - guess it's time to sue.

An actor thinking they know a character's belief system, and actually writing it on the page are two entirely different things. I said it before and I'll say it again: it was perfectly within her right to quit the show if she did not personally approve of what she was asked to play; but it's also perfectly within OLTL's rights to replace her if she does not perform the duties of her job, i.e. act what's written. I can assure you, if I don't perform the duties of my job, I won't have it for very long.

Is it against her belief system or what she believes Carlotta's belief system is? I would understand why Carlotta would have a problem with the gay storyline since she is a Catholic and most catholics that I know are against homosexuality and she has played the character for so long maybe she thought she had a say in what the character believes and doesn't believe. But we are in a tuff time for soaps and its hard enough to find a job in other types of work so I think as an actor she should of just acted out the scenes as written she was not a contract player and well she's a woman and you know how ABC feels about both of those things.

This news saddens me more than I can tell you. I always loved seeing PM as Carlotta and was so horrified to find out she is a homophobe. What I want to know is why would she want to stay on a soap that she finds so morally repugnant?

What if Sarah Michelle Gellar had become a born again Christian during filming of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Would she have been in her legal right to stop playing stories about the occult? I respect all religious beliefts, that's why there are the Left Behind movies and church plays. Do those, but don't try to use your religious beliefts to hijack soap opera scripts.

Mauceri is even crazier than I thought. Her homophobic ass is examining her "legal options"??? SHE HAS NONE. If there's ever a case that's built for the granting of a defendant's motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, it's this one should Mauceri be dumb enough to file an actual action against ABC. She's deluded!!!

Many Catholic Latina mothers love and accept their gay sons. Mauceri's belief system is not necessarily representative of all Catholic Latina mothers' views on homosexuality. NOWHERE in the Gospels does Jesus even speak about condemning homosexuals: what Jesus did speak about was the acceptance of and loving EVERYONE and especially the least of His brothers, i.e., the marginalized in society -- the lepers, the prostitutes and anyone else that society has left behind. But hating anyone? That's not what Jesus preached or would do, Ms. Mauceri.

Shame, shame, shame.

What is there to defend? She is a bigot, plain and simple.

I still think the Chris Engen story is more interesting because I truly think he got majorly screwed by the people in charge who leaked info that wasn't completely truthful and pretty much ruined his career.

Folks I didnt say I agreed with her, the question was asked under what premise could she sue. I gave a theory. I never said I agreed with it. I also gave the rebuttal as well as espoused a theory that ABC could potentially have a countersuit.

I didnt realize she didnt have a contract since she is in the opening credits. As a recurring performer, she still must have a contract of some type. She also has historical precedence with her experience with the show and those of others. Have they ever accomodated someone else for their beliefs? I dont know the answer to these questions. On its face, it wouldnt seem to me that she wouldn't have a case, because I am sure her contract gives the network broad rights to change direction, but then again I never thought Hunter Tylo would have won her case against the producers of Melrose.

But since you brought up Left Behind, what if Kirk Cameron accepted a part on a sitcom that was suppose to be about the wacky hijinxs of a clean-cut all american family akin to the Cosby Show and their young neighbor who is a widower. They tell him, his character is going to go out on dates with various women and comedy will ensue from funny but clean cut misunderstandings. He accepts the part and then when ratings tank they decide to make the character a Jack tripper type. He takes in two young braless roomies and the humor starts to go in that direction. He makes his living not just from that show but also from his residuals from Left Behind and other religious based programming. It would then come down to his CONTRACT and whats in his agreement. Any legal actions would be based on what was discussed when he accepted the part. etc. etc.

Law always faces a challenge where the rights of one person conflict with the rights of another person. I am just saying that I think she is entitled to her belief system whether I agree with it or not. And whether her right to her belief system translates into a right to object to this script is ultimately a matter of contract law one way or the other.

Wait a minute. So, this actress, who's portrayed Carlotta for more than 10 years, was completely unable to understand and seperate her personal feelings from the entirely MADE UP and FICTIONAL character's beliefs is going to sue for defamation? Who's being "defamated against"? Patricia or Carlotta, because regardless of whom is attempting to sue ABC/OLTL, they really don't have a case.

Patricia is NOT Carlotta and vice versa. This makes no sense to me.

Defamation is when you tell lies about someone. Unless she is suing about something abc said after she was released, her case would be about something along the lines of unlawful termination not defamation.

As someone who defended Chris Engen and felt sorry for Patricia, I call b.s.

She's an at-will actress. She didn't like the script and refused to act out the story on religious grounds. Fine. The show hired someone who was willing to play the role as written. OLTL didn't force her to do anything against her will. She's playing a character. What the character believes and what she believes are two different things!

Case closed!

P.S.

Michael Muhney is a BETTER Adam and he's wicked smart (member of Mensa!) and funny! Check out his Twitter posts!

She still wouldn't have any claims over being unlawfully terminated from her job. She is STILL not Carlotta Vega and vice versa. Carlotta Vega is a fictional character that was written and created by another person, wno's NOT Patricia Mauceri. She was cast to PORTRAY that fictional character on the tv show. She wasn't cast to portray that fictional character in her time off the show.

It still doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when most actors and actresses stress the difference between who they are in real life and what they are PAID to portray in their professional lives.

Mauceri has no leg to stand on in any unlawful termination case. Not under Title VII or its New York state equivalents. With her status at OLTL, Mauceri is as close as you get to an at-will employee in the soap world. And just like at-will employees who can get laid off, fired and dismissed without any need from the employer to justify such action, so can Mauceri and that's what ABC did.

Mauceri is so full of it. She says she doesn't object to being part of a gay storyline, but everything else she says after that initial sentence clearly conveys that she DOES IN FACT object to the storyline, its content, and how her MINOR character's POV was being portrayed.

At the very least she should get a better spin doctor rather than going on and on with her verbal diarrhea.